441. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 48 (Ettershank (b), pt. 1)

I had to cancel my appointment with the optometrist this morning because it's so far away and I didn't think I could drive that far with my bad legs.  That's the thing with being in a strange city where no one knows me either.  I go to a really small church and it's hard to develop a support network when you're sick all the time.  And since I had the setback over the weekend, there was no time for me to call to get a ride to the appointment.  So there you go and that's how I end out having to miss it. 

It was set up in the first place because I wanted to have her check my eyes because of one of the biological medicines I'm on for rheumatoid arthritis.  So I have to reschedule... again.  I had to reschedule once already because another doctor rescheduled on me making me have to change her appointment.  So now I feel badly about having to change her appointment again, but there's nothing I can really do about it.  My legs just aren't up to driving 50-60 miles round trip, especially city driving.

***

This next article is:

Ettershank, John P. (1983, Fall). The chaplain's allegiance to the military. Military Chaplains' Review, 12(4), 41-46.

***

I ________, SSAN ______, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the Unied States, as indicated above in the grade of ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; SO HELP ME GOD.

A number of us have taken that oath at least twice: once when being sworn into the Army of the United States as a reservist or National Guardsman and then later in our career when we were integrated into the Regular Army. (p. 41)

This is how the article begins, and, as the text insinuates, the initial paragraph is the oath the military chaplains take in the Army, or it was at the time of publication.  I assume the variation of swear vs. affirm was to give allowance for those faiths who refused to swear by anything, so affirming would be acceptable to them, that their "yea be yea" (James 5:12).  So their merely affirming to something would be the same as the next person's swearing to it, which many Christians would agree is ideally how it should be anyway, but for these people that's the only way they will have it.  They just don't take oaths, so the government had to make this accommodation and it recognized the fealty of their word, and that it actually was as trustworthy as an oath, so it was willing to add "(or affirm)" in there. 

Of course, these things often don't come without much anguish either, so as to how the "(or affirm)" came to be there I am speculating some and I may be leaving out quite a history.  It's possible.  The U.S. military can be quite unforgiving in these kinds of things so it's possible that even this didn't come without a lot of anguish or activism.  Or maybe these people had to prove themselves on the battlefield surreptitiously first somehow. 

In the former USSR this issue of taking a vow was one of the major issues in the religious groups that held to no vow taking that caused them particular grief and suffering.  These were smaller groups, mostly around the lower Urals and around that area, maybe just to the west and east from there.  The Seventh Day Adventists were primary among these.  Even though these weren't proportionally great in number, they did have a group presence and they did have a tough time and this oath issue was a major part of the problem, largely because of the universal military conscription.  And the Soviets were less inclined to consider changing "swear" to "affirm" to account for their ethical and spiritual sensibilities. 

But where have I gotten myself in all this banter except that my 45 minute stimulator session has already ended and I should go get breakfast?  I'll be back to pick up and bring us back to Vienna in a few minutes.

 I just want to say that I'm coming up with these discussions like this about the church in Eastern Europe (when it was the Warsaw Pact and Communist Eastern Europe, mind you) on the fly because it is something I knew so well just on the tip of my tongue that I could talk about it very easily and fluently and discuss the nuances and issues and differences in regions and different parts of countries and the like.  I've become rusty now, so you can imagine how much I knew back then, so I wasn't just some upstart that came to Vienna as a secretary, right? 

So the kind of very unexpected and startling reception I recieved the first few months, although it made me step back and sort of stopped me from being open regarding how much or what I knew (any more than they were genuinely open with me I felt), it did form a backdrop from which I could understand and interpret a lot of what happened in Vienna.  So I have every reason to believe that they didn't know that I'd be doing that kind of thinking.  I don't know, for example, if the other wives who were sent back to the U.S. thought of their experience as similar to how the Soviets treated believers in trying to get the believers to change their way of thinking.

But back again to Vienna and the article.  The issue here, of course, is one of allegiance.  When I was living in Russia in the 1990s I wanted to get a dual citizenship.  I had a Vid na Zhitelsva (the Russian version of a Green Card, for those of you in the USA, otherwise, a permanent residence visa).  Russia was actually okay with that and it wouldn't have been a problem to do that as far as they were concerned.  But the U.S. wasn't.  If I had taken a Russian citizenship, in addition to the U.S. citizenship, which I had by virtue of having been born in the U.S., and the U.S. found out about it, the U.S. would have annulled my U.S. citizenship.  So I rather begrudgingly chose the U.S. citizenship, but it was not a happy choice.

So the U.S. government saw a conflict of allegiance (in general, not just in my case, because this was a general policy) in carrying both a U.S. and Russian citizenship.  This wasn't (looking at that particular moment in time) true of all national citizenships, because certainly there are many countries that the U.S. allows people to have dual citizenship with and they do not apparently see a conflict of allegiance there.  But with Russia they did.  Of course, we know the political anamosities that historically have separated the countries to make this understandable, but I'm using this as an example.  This was around 1994.

So when are allegiances unacceptable and conflictual?  Christians are ambassadors for Christ and while I believe that whatever we do we should do all to the glory to God, our first allegiance has to be to God and His Church.

Also, I don't see myself as an American (despite my U.S. passport), so much as a resident of the world and citizen of heaven.  This is not just a matter of politics, U.N. style, as it is a matter of being a part of world humanity. 

In recent years, with the decline of my health, I've had to pull back from focus on anything more than taking care of my immediate needs.  In fact, I've missed a lot of my family's milestones because I can barely keep up with my own needs.  But I still feel guilty and wonder if I could have done more and how I can rig things to do more in the future, especially now that mom's gone (even if my brothers and I have rocky relations).  So I may not appear to hold to this belief, but I do; I just am not able to act upon it as I once was.  I hope others are filling in for me.

Before I'd become ill I'd begun to learn about some alternative and creative possibilities to pursue alternatives to what we have now.  There is something called "Peace Force," which I think is a fantastic idea and has had some success, for example.  A variety of means are needed for a variety of situations though.  And since we live in a fallen world, it's not like we're going to necessarily solve all the problems this way, creating a nirvana or something.  I'm not an idealist like this.  But I do think that we need to try some alternative things that the church can be at the forefront of to make a difference and this can be a great way to show Christ in action.

But the military is going to make the chaplain take something - an allegiance or affirmation or whatever you want to call it - and there's probably no way you can get around this.  So the chaplain who feels called to the Army better feel comfortable with this, because I think that this oath is like being unequally yoked:

2 Corinthians 6:13-15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹³ Now in a like exchange—I speak as to children—open wide to us also.
¹⁴ Do not be ^[a]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? ¹⁵ Or what harmony has Christ with ^[b]Belial, or ^[c]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

The goals and intentions of new chaplains (the ones taking the oaths) are good, certainly, as they are concerned for the soldiers and want to have a spiritual impact on lives and maybe even institutions.  So I wouldn't necessarily question that, nor the need, as certainly, there is need, although we might quibble over the exact need(s).  If you go into the lions den - take an oath to join a secular organization - you'd better pray to remain whole.  And search your heart that you're not testing God unnecessarily by taking the oath and making this compromise.

At this point the U.S. puts Christians to shame, because they are more particular than some of us are regarding who we will be yoked with (or allow our citizens to be yoked with in dual citizenship). 

[I'm not saying whether I agree or not with the U.S.'s particular choices, but you must admit that it (the government) does understand that when you have an enemy you don't become unequally yoked with it and allow citizens to maintain dual citizenships.  Doing so would not be in national interests.  In Christian terms, we might say that it undermines our testimony.  In either case, the yoked entity ends out with influence that is otherwise undesirable, at least from the standpoint of the U.S. and the Christians, continuing with the same case studies.

So, of course the U.S. government would like the Christian to vow to join its chaplaincy.  In this case the Christian is compromising and the govermnent, being a secular entity, and, as such unequally yoked with it, undermines it, even if subtly.

I don't see how you can get around it, really, and to deny it, it seems to me, is to put your head in the sand.  I doubt that the government could ever get away with wholesale undermining of the church, at least as I know it today in the USA, although I don't know at some point in the future what may hold.  That doesn't mean that there can't be true Christianity going on in military chaplaincy efforts, because God can still use us even if we're out on a limb working in situations we are way out of wack in.  So even if all those other things I just said are true that doesn't mean God can't work through chaplains, or enlisted men or volunteers on the bases or overseas ministries to bases there or whatever.  So we may all be idiots but God somehow manages to find a way to work with us and He knows our hearts and He helps direct us down the path He has prepared for us.  So that's God's sovereignty and His grace too.  But...

Romans
5
²¹ That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

6 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

² God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
 ...
⁶ Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
⁷ For he that is dead is freed from sin.
⁸ Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
⁹ Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
¹⁰ For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
¹¹ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
¹² Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
¹³ Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
¹⁴ For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
¹⁵ What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
¹⁶ Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
¹⁷ But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
¹⁸ Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
¹⁹ I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
²⁰ For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
²¹ What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
²² But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Although a lot could be said about these verses, and I will let the reader make his or her own application.  If you aren't familiar with the gospel message, you can see it here in this passage.  The heart of the matter is that before Jesus came we were slaves to sin.  And that's how we all are before we become Christians.  Then we went through a spiritual rebirth when became Christians and the steps the Christ went through in his death on the cross, burial, resurrection, etc. are our spiritual experience too. Once you become a Christian you still have to learn to walk faithfully, as this passage indicates, but we have the Holy Spirit in us to help too.   If you haven't asked Christ to come into your life and forgive you and let him come and help you start a new life, this would be a good time to do it.  You can just go through these verses and pray them.

 So for the rest of us that are Christians (or are two obstinate to become Christians), I just wanted to point out that, picking up from the paragraph before the Romans passage, we should be careful not to fall into the "What shall we say then, shall we continue that grace may abound?"  or "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" mentality.  That is, think twice before becoming unequally yoked.  

***

None of us has ever sworn or affirmed to the military per se.  As our oath of allegiance states, our promise is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America... Suffice it to say, I firmly believe we as commissioned chaplains owe allegiance to the military. (p. 41)

I think some of my above comments about my feeling like a world resident (but heavenly citizen) would apply here. 

It could be seen as a bit better to swear to the country instead of an armed force because it is less militaristic, and rather points to why the military might even be engaging in anything if it is engaging, and then also takes the law back to the original source.  So then it is actually more forceful and the vow extends even outside the military boundary because the source is outside the military.  So you're locked in and no escaping it, but it's more patriotic than militaristic. It would probably be easier (conscience-wise) for chaplains to wave the patriotic flag anyway than join a gun-toting full-dress parade.    So patriotic is the way to go with chaplains, I think.  Other than that, the Constitution applies to all the military branches as well, so it unites all of them together as well.

I think the chaplains in the Vienna mission also would have been the kind to believe they owed allegiance to the military.  It's just a hunch I have, really, but they just struck me as the type that felt good about their connection to the military.  Whether it was their access to the camp store or getting us into the former Hitler's Bird's Nest, at that time a U.S. military retreat center, for our bi-annual retreat, and just their demeanor.  I think they would have agreed with this author.  I am saying "they", but I actually didn't know the junior H.R. department staff as well as the director; I have no reason, however, to think he was any different than, the department director.

***

"All of our churches have adequately prepared us theologically to perform the religious services, rites, sacraments, and ordinances required by the U.S. Code." (p. 42)

I just want to say that this at first reading just now (it was underlined from my first reading in the 1990s in Minneapolis) didn't seem to add anything new.  But then I made the comparison with seminaries in the former East Bloc.  The seminaries there were mostly the ones that were government authorized, so they had to more or less compromise, depending on what country, what denomination, etc.  Some groups tried to hold underground training or one sort or another, of course, but it would have been very difficult.

But the thing was, that these groups generally did not like the government meddling in their affairs.  It's not like they had a choice in the meddling, although they tried to wheedle their way around it so they'd come out with things as much in their favor as possible.  But to voluntarily carry courses meeting U.S. code requirements!  I must admit that I'm more than a little curious as to what they'd think.  Some believers were so pro-American, though that they might not have cared.  I think this was largely a byproduct of the carelessness - or worse - of Western missionaries (the ones that I didn't want anything to do with when I was living in Siberia, for example).  However, to leave it only to the missionaries would be naive too.  There were others also having an influence.

***

The chaplain must not only possess and apply theological teaching, but also be skilled in the military arts. (p. 42)

I trust the chaplain at the Vienna mission had no intentions of applying any of those skills while with the mission.... If he is a non-weapon bearing member of the military during time of war, what is the purpose of him/her learning the military arts?  Either s/he is or s/he isn't - which is it?  Or is it just so s/he can "relate to" the soldiers better? 

How much more unequally yoked are you going to become, Mr/s. Chaplain?

***

"We were thought of as soldiers but respected and treated as chaplains." (p. 43)

I think that's mincing words. If you think of someone one way, then chances are you're going to treat him/her that way too.  How do they know they were thought of as soldiers if they weren't treated as soldiers?  The text answers this somewhat, but it's still pushing it, I think.

If in all honesty the author was able to succeed in being "thought of as a soldier, but respected and treated as a chaplain," then that would mean he did a reasonable job of balancing his being unequally yoked, since it would appear that his chaplaincy role and persona took the supremacy over his duties as a soldier. 

I'm not saying, though,  I agree with it nor that I think the measuring stick is reliable or valid or that he should even be there in the first place. 

***

This next quote is under the heading "A Humanizing Force"

I'm going to avail myself of one of those prerogatives right now.  I don't believe we serve in a de-humanizing environment.  I think the system, especially in Initial Entry Training (IET), de-personalizes individuals; this is of particular interest to TRADOC chaplains...

Once the system, through the reception station, gets trainees to look alike, the training battalion begins its work to make them act alike.  Conformity here becomes the norm: close-order drill, marching, movement in formation, performance-orientated skills with pupil-coach methodology.  Closely inter-twined with act-alike is the subtle approach towards thinking alike; unanimity; united in opinion.

And what is the trainees perception of the process? Hear it said: 'No one cares about me; only my attitude and my performance matter!"

This is a stressful time for the tranees.  They have no appreciation of what this de-personalization process seeks to accomplish.  Its purpose is to surordinate personal interest for the welfare of the group, the squad or the platoon, and to cause concern for the welfare of others.  It seeks to create interdependence instead of indepencence. (p. 45-46)

This is socialization, of course, a subject I've dealt with at some length on this blog before.  Here we have the methods and the goals both.

One thing I must say is that this author pushes here (in sections I didn't quote) for chaplains to transform this program that the Army wants to be dehumanizing - to make everyone alike - to make instead everyone wanting to look out for the group's interests, but not necessarily everyone alike, so that individuals soldiers can keep their individuality.  So he's sticking his neck out and this is Christian because it reflects how the Body of Christ is set up as all being made up of different members.  It's borderling sabotoge, but it would be for the Army's interests, if they can pull it off.  (This was written in 1983, so I'd have to look in historical records to find out.)

Okay, so getting back to the text and comparing it to my experience at the Vienna mission.  To refresh you memory - in case you read earlier posts - new members to the mission just came straggling in one by one, so you didn't have large groups of cohorts like the military did in their boot camps, so I have to right away adjust the scenario for that.

In Vienna, there definitely was a strong interest in wanting newcomers - all newcomers as far as I knew - to have a group perspective and have that be their point of reference for the duration with the mission.  The point of reference might be stronger, however, to a particular department, but there always had to be a commitment to the large group no matter who you were, even those missionaries living in Eastern Europe.  So that was definite objective of socialization.

Subordination was also an objective, but I never really understood that very well because I was moved around a lot, I always did what I was told, yet I was so often in trouble.  I never disobeyed a senior.  Yet I knew that "they" wanted me to live with the other secretary, for example.  But it wasn't as if my boss had ordered that and I had disobeyed, for example.  And most of the time I felt as if what they really wanted was for me to just bear all and completely trust them for everything, but even then I didn't know what I'd gain.  So I could do that and just make a fool of myself.  So the authority issue as stated here was very important in the Vienna mission, but I never got it.  I do know I never went in running in tears to my boss early on when I was having all the stress at work, and I think that's what I was supposed to do.

In the Vienna mission, you would never, ever have heard that no one cares about you.  For one thing, it was too intimate of a situation.  For another, it was too concerned about security and they couldn't risk anyone having a problem.  They wanted everyone to be like a big family and be able to come to one another for help if they needed it. 

Despite the caring atmosphere of the mission, the first months the new missionary is there can be difficult and, while I don't know about all the department and specialties, I think it can feel like de-personalization, depending how how much of a difficult process it is for the person.  Since I've discussed this at length elsewhere I won't belabor it here, but the mission does put together (and I think on the fly puts some together once you're there too, once they see your weaknesses, etc.).   The person has to make some moral decisions and takes a crash course that puts them into the underworld in which the mission operates.  I guess that's more or less it.

***

I guess that's it.  It took a long time to do this one too, partly because I got a crown put in in the middle of it.  Since I'd been resting all weekend trying to recuperate from Friday's overdoing it and making my legs take a turn for the worse.  So I just made the one appointment and dropped off a prescription at the drug store.  That wiped me out just doing those two.  So I'm not doing anything the rest of the day. 

439. Military Chaplaincy, pt. 46 (Seidel (b), pt. 1)

I'm sorry, in the shuffle of things, I forgot that I hadn't finished going through the military chaplaincy file.  It's so hard to keep up with things and it's doubly frustrating when I want to do things but half the time I don't feel up to doing most of the things I want or half to do.  So right now at least I can do some things at the computer (some of the time - I have to lay down some too).  There's all this stuff at home to do, too, and, of course, that says nothing about what I would do if I were healthy and could get around like a healthy person. 

But we all have our limitations, and I've always been able to somehow make the best within the limitations I have.  But that doesn't mean there isn't an adjustment period.  So every time there is a change there might be a bit of adjustment, depending on the situation.  Maybe you can relate to what I'm saying.  It's just that I've been through it in some pretty extreme situations, from Vienna isolated where I had to figure things out on my own (as I thought, anyway), to Siberia, to dealing with family where I thought my father was part of my problems but would never admit it and I couldn't trust him completely. To employment problems that have left some family members to this day as pegging me as lazy or just dealing with living alone in a strange city with all these health issues and trying to rise above it. 

It's really hard, I admit.  I don't really want people to feel sorry for me, but sometimes it would be nice for mom or a good friend, for example, to put their arms around me and let me have a good cry.  I'm only human after all!  But I'm the epitome of the strong person that just forges ahead in the face of all sorts of adversity.  And by the way, I don't need anyone, especially if I sense at all that there might be any ulterior motives or hidden agenda in a potential assistant.  Or sometimes it's just that they naively try to associate me with a position, for example, such as, "I'm so glad you finally made it to the land of Capitalism and came to your senses about the wickedness of Communism." 

Whoa, Nellie!  This is referring, of course to my rescuing from Russia (I originally moved there when it was the USSR still) in 1997, in which my father played a part.  The thing is that 1) I never did like Communism.  and 2) I never did like Capitalism.  So please do not ever try to associate me with either one of these.  (Without going into reams of boringly repetitive materials from earlier posts, I think Communism errantly assumes humans are fundamently good and will of their own free will share everything.  Balderdash.  On the other hand Capitalism is sheer greed and anyone who has any understanding of sin knows that the love of money is the root of all evil.  So how can Capitalism be good, especially from a Christian standpoint? 

Just don't try to ask me, then what kind of economic system I do believe in, because I do not claim to be an economist.  I'll leave it up to the economists to try to come up with something that more closely resembles scriptural Christianity.  Of course, some might say that the early church practiced early socialism or comunism or something of that nature.  If they had the new nature and the Holy Spirit living in them, then that deals with the issue of humans not willingly sharing prossessions with each others.  The problem is, however, that, unfortunately, Christians still can sin, so even this is going to be problematic.

The other issue was that the missions I went to Vienna with were more or less openly right wing.  While I was in Russia I joined Americans United for the Separation for Church and State which seems to be represented more by liberal than conservative churches (as well as other religions), although they deal with issues across the board.  But Conservative and Fundamental Christian churches tend not to like them and the very concept of separation of church and state.  For example, conservative churches tend to want prayer - Evangelical prayer, to be specific, or the Evangelical version of the Lord's Prayer - in schools.   I think I would have been persona non gratis at the Vienna mission on the basis of my membership in this organization alone, had they known.  I would have been the enemy or at the very least not someone they would chose to divulge anything more than the route to the W.C. to, which in Austria, was usually right near the entryway, anyway.

What am I trying to say?  I guess it's just that one of the things I've had to deal with in my transitions is that when people have helped me it seems they inevitibly have preconceived ideas about me when they do help me.  But those ideas often misrepresent me.  In the USSR they were not in my best interests no matter how you look at it, although I was able to turn some things around and make some good come of it eventually.  Other times when people helped me I didn't understand; it seemed like I was being set up for something that missed the mark of where I was and what I'd become.  It's like people were thinking of me as I was years prior and not in the then and now.  I inevitably ended out tearing myself free of these shackles, as I ended out feeling them as, and I was very much misunderstood and not a lot of good came of it.  It smelled to me like it was related to dad because there were themes like there had been themes for years since the whole debacle leading up to my move to Russia.  But no one believed me any more. 

This was way after Vienna, so I'm getting ahead of myself.  When I left Russia, I knew I had to change my profession.  I changed profession after I left Vienna, so that I got a Master's degree in Adult Education and teaching certification in teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.  I tried to get into a doctoral program in sociology with a focus in peace studies, but I wasn't accepted (presumably because I didn't have a sociology background). 

Then I was accepted into a doctorate program in Adult Education, but I was interested in social justice issues, and I didn't realize that adult education in the US was so business and corporate-oriented and even ESL and literacy is so top-down focused and concerned only with making learners conform to society rather than create and have an impact, be a force for good in society, etc.  So I couldn't stand it.  That's not what I'm about.  And I got stuck with a professor that I had a feeling he might make me look bad with sexual inuendos.  A couple other doctoral students told me about rumors going around.  The thing was that I put out a post on the list serve that I wanted adult education for community development and there wasn't a program.  He'd been brought on staff the year before I came as a student, but nothing had been done yet.  So I didn't want my reputation ruined by him either, and I was being told by these two professors that I would be a professor and I was looking around at the schools and I was gagging, thinking, where do I want to be a professor?  and I jumped ship.  I wanted to direct a community program and/or do applied research (participatory, community-based, evaluation, needs assessment, etc.)

After that I had to take time out to get treated for Hepatits C which I most likely contracted in Russia in 1992 in a blood transfusion.  (Ironically, I'd gotten tested for AIDS on a trip to the USA after the operation in which the transfusion was administered, but I hadn't heard of Hepatitus C to get tested for it.]

Then I was accepted at another doctoral program I felt very excited about, but it was in Canada, and I didn't get a grant of fellowship there and I couldn't work there, because I was not Canadian.   I mapped out a nearby U.S. city and I thought I did pretty thorough study of the districts, current nonprofits and activities, the demographics, etc., etc.  I put together a plan and whatnot, but I just couldn't get funding for it.  I even found a building and had professionals come out and run estimates as to how much it would cost to fix it up, make it handicap excessible, etc.   I was really excited about it.  I know I could do it.  If my health were up, it would have been a fantastic thing to get started with inheritance monies and just prove to people, because people never believe what I can do, until I go out and prove it to the world.  So that's why I'm a loner and I like to do things on my own, because no one seems to believe in me, I guess.  And if people believe in  me, they ignore my conscience.  But my conscience, is who I am.  How can you just ignore a person's conscience?  In Vienna they did it?  They did it without a care in the world.  My dad even did it.   The Komsomols did it, but that's a no brainer.  The professors at my doctoral staff even seemed to do it.

Conscience.  Is it something that you can just take and try to make over to your image?  (like the Vienna mission) Is it something you can try to humiliate? (like the Komsols) Or is it something to just ignore and deny exists? (as dad seems to have done, not wanting to admit I changed)

All I wanted was ministry to a people I felt called to reach with the gospel.  That was my initial conscience. 

***

I wasn't going to do that... it just evolved.  That's one way to look at my life from 1987-2000.

Returning to the discussion of our texts... in my haste to just jump back in, I overlooked the fact that I hadn't finished with the Military Chaplaincy file yet.  So I'd better finish that one and then we'll go back to the Discipline & Justice File.

This article is:

Seidel, Andrew B. (1981, Summer). Developing a healthy self-image. Military Chaplains' Review, 49-59.
 

***

"Given the biblical antagonism against selfishness in all its forms, it is not surprising that christian [sic] psychologists and theologians began to react to the unfortunate equation of a good self-image with self-love.  Paul C. Vitz in his book Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, writes:

... Certainly Jesus Christ neither lived nor advocated a life that would qualify by today's standards as 'self-actualized.' For the Christian the self is the problem, not the potential paradise." (p. 49)

So the issue, remember is not just the teaching and what I think of it, but how it relates to my experience in Vienna.  In my experience and memory of them, the leadership - my boss, the secretaries who were mentoring me (my boss', boss' secretary in particular) and the infamous H.R. director who was the reserve U.S. military chaplain - could sort of pull these kinds of things out of a had and tweak them or focus on particular aspects according to the situation at hand and as they thought, it seemed to me at least, in their best interests. 

And when they went in counseling mode it was hardest for me to trust them because I was always certain it was a lure.  The emotional aspect of things was a lure, because they were not going to deal with things point blank.  I mean, they weren't going to deal with the kinds of things that were bothering me, at least, in a direct manner.  I think I I broached my issues directly to them they'd somehow come up with a cannon that would shoot me straight back home, and believe me, I would NOT pass go or collect $200.    I'd be out of there so fast I wouldn't know what hit me. 

The mission leaders, H.R. director included, would probably have agreed with this quote, although I knew that while I was with the mission there was one woman staffer that wasn't full time on the woman's ministry team, but did a lot of trips with them and she didn't agree with some of the staff that had nice homes in the suburbs.  Some of them, and I only saw a few, actually, were pretty well appointed I must say for missionaries.  So she really thought that missionaries shouldn't live so high on the hog, and she was somewhat disgruntled about that. 

That's not exactly the same thing, but I think it might be related to what this passage is saying.  So there may have been some variance of conviction regarding how exactly this passage might be applied in daily life.

As for myself, well, it's no great secret that my "self-actualization" was at level "0" by the time I left Vienna, so maybe I was at the perfect place for God to work in me.  Maybe that's a good way to look at it, that I hadn't seen before, and maybe I need to actually thank the mission for breaking me to make me more vulnerable for God's work.

I'm not sure if what transpired after I left Vienna, though, might be understood as God's leading necessarily.  But that is getting ahead of myself, isn't it?

At any rate, I don't think that at time in my stay in Vienna can you say I had self love.  I never really was caught up in myself, I don't think.  Even outside the mission, when I was going to the Austrian church, I worked under the auspices of the church's leadership.  But in the Austrian mission I just met nonsense after nonsense so there wasn't much for me to follow.  I'm not into a lot of games.  So I don't put up with that kind of stuff.  You either want me or you don't. 

***

"It is self-acceptance, not self-exaltation of self-depreciation (nor indeed self-love) that is commanded in scripture. Self-acceptance is taught in scripture because an adequate self-concept is necessary to function successfully in life.  Any pastor or chaplain who has been involved in counseling has noted that those who struggle with strong feelings of inferiority have a difficult time living a satisfying life.  The same may be said for those who are conceited.  Both have a very difficult time relating to other people.  Speaking of the need for an adequate self-concept, Lawrence J. Crabb has said, ".. people must accept themselves as adequate in a truly significant role if they are to honestly  regard themselves as worthwhile and so to enjoy the fullfillment of being a real person, he must be able to help him develop a realistic, accurate, and adequate self-image." (p. 51)

This passage follows a paragraph discussing Romans 12:3 " For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you."  So the context specifically is not to consider our role or position in the church as greater than you should.  The journal article is taking the liberties to expand the application of this verse beyond the original intentions.  I don't want to completely preclude that use of the verse, but I must admit that it is wanton use of it without any mention of the original limitations.  Things like that tend to put my guard up.  You really can say anything with Scripture if you want to.

Now let me show it in context so you can really see what the verse is saying:

Romans
³ For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. ⁴ For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, ⁵ so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. ⁶ We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your^[a] faith; ⁷ if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; ⁸ if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,^[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

So the author is making it to be anthropology (the theology of man) whereas I think it's really eccleseology (the theology of the church).  Romans 3:3-8 is a microcosm, one of several places in Scripture, showing us what the church should be like.  And the church just happens to be made up of people, so of course it has to describe the people that make up the church. 

But the author of this text takes out one verse and chooses to make that one verse be anthropological - actually, not even that, he makes it psychological, so it's not even a religious study, but a secular study.  So he uses a religuous basis, a weak one only tangentially drawn out of context and uses it to support his secular thesis. 

At least the vast majority of the Vienna missionaries didn't do that, except for.... you guessed it... the U.S. military reserve chaplains.  My contention is it's because they were raised on drivel like this.  They had spent too much time in the military and instead of being salt and light they themselves had been affected by the military and came away less salty and shiny than when they went in.

Consistent with everything I just said, the author ignores why Paul admonished the Romans to not think of themselves more highly than they ought, etc., by ignoring the very next verse, which says that we all have different gifts and members and we need each other.  We're not an island!  Now this is what I'm talking about.  It's simple, and get past all the psycho babble and gobbledy-gook and if you're going to use Scripture, get down and roll up your sleeves and really do it, not to just pull out one verse and take it out of context!!

***

"What is Our Self-Image?

The self-image is a collage of images, feelings, and value judgments pertaining to oneself. (p. 51)

I guess I just put this reference sake.  I know my self-image is all over the place and that's why I feel like it's hard for people to relate to me; because I've had too many unusual experiences between Vienna and Russia and a few others thrown in and it really feels lonely, believe me.  I miss Grandmother, because she was the one that I really could talk to, but I think dad was going to sway her about my problems in the USA because she wasn't going to believe me about those for long in opposition to what he would tell her.  It's very lonely.  If it weren't for the health care I might well be better off in Russia.  I might have friends, at least teacher friends, if not among Christians.  The Orthodox might accept me; same with the Quakers.   One of these days I should try to make it down to the Quaker meeting here.  It's close to where I used to live though, at my old condo, so it's like 20 miles (42 km) away.

***

A person's self-concept is also the product of his own evaluation of his experiences.  All of us react to our experiences by making value judgments about them.  When we succeed in accomplishing something something we desired to do, we feel good about ourselves.  When we do not succeed, we place a negative value judgment on ourselves for failing and feel bad about ourselves.  If we usually accomplish what we desire, we tend to have a positive self-image.  A number of failures to meet our own goals would tend to produce a negative self-image. It is, however, extremely difficult to talk about value judgments as being strictly individual because our goals and values are so heavily influenced by other people. (p. 52)

The part about being influenced by other people has been a real stickler with me.  I've tended to chose the people I might let influence me and if I think people are way off and don't understand something, such as family back home not understanding what's happened in Vienna, then I sort of cardone off a part of me, or I might become silent or just drift off or look for work where I might be able to reach my goals, and the like.  So my family has on one hand been through the most of anyone with me, but on the other hand, they misunderstand me up the wazoo.  If I felt like they wanted to understand I might be willing to open up, but I feel like they'd just deride me, especially since the only ones left now are my brothers. 

I think the way other people's judgments influence me the most now is by the fact that now I have ended out at a time in my life alone.  I can't contribute that completely to these judgments, because my moving around had a very large amount to do with it too, but I think friends sort of lost faith in me and began to misunderstand me more and more as I moved around more and  more so that it became harder and harder to keep friends.  So that was a kind of judgment perhaps.

Otherwise, I have tended to have been a person of strong conviction and I've often run against the crowd in difficult situations or poked my head into difficult situations and being sure of my values haven't necessarily wanted to change with the values of the new group or setting.  Sometimes I've ended out tweaking my values a bit as I've thought through things.

So, in the end, I think that I'm not the type that's directly very vulnerable to direct influence in the area of values.

The author is probably thinking of things like being influenced by parental upbringing and at church and the like.  Well certainly as a child I was influenced by my parents and also at church and then in my formal schooling.  So those things I would say did have affect on my values. 

***

Even later in life a person's self-image is significantly affected by others' responses to him.  Particularly in a highly competitive professions such as the military... A low efficiency report or missed promotion can be devastating to the self-image." (p. 53)

Of course, no matter what I thought about whether I could work with the mission or not, by the time the end of my two year commitment had come my self-image was on the floor.  Missed promotion?  I had been demoted and sent back to the US and tossed around like a hot potato and you'd think I was spy or something.  Even though I didn't show it on the outside, I was a shambles on the inside and it all came to light once I returned home to the USA after my term with the mission was up. 

***

"Physical attractiveness is a major source of human worth.  After describing the powerful influences of physical attractiveness on children, Dobson states: "Most of the major choises made by adults are influenced one way or another by the attribute of beauty."

Intelligence is another quality highly values by our society... For most people it does not matter whether these values are right or wrong.  What does matter is that the majority of people hold these values.  One therefore can feel worthy and significant only if he conforms to these values." (p. 54)

In these realms I pretty much had it going for me.  Well, I wasn't a genius, but I'm relatively intelligent, and I'm pretty good looking.  I don't think I ever got overly caught up in the physical attractiveness, because, for example, when I learned many European women don't shave their legs I was all for it, and no or minimalist makeup was fine with me.  So I was an easy care person and not one to spend hours in the mirror gawking trying to get everything perfect or trying to run down the boys or anything.  But on the other hand, I was naive, when I should have been a little more cautious.  I didn't really think about the psychology of men and what they might be thinking or how I need to deal with them even if I hadn't been otherwise thinking about men until the issue came up.  So my problem was naivety mostly, I think, and maybe not being able to stand up for myself; being timid against men. 

I think that's partly because men in my family all had the upper hand.  So even if someone taught me to "just say no" (well for sex or something I did manage to say no, but before that I mean), I had no close precedent for that.  In fact just a couple years ago I asked mom if she ever disagreed with dad and she couldn't think of one time even!!  So how on earth was I ever going to learn to stand up to men based on the examples of the men in my family.  Well, as an teenager it was mom and dad, because I was the oldest, so my brothers were still just learning from dad and they were 2 and 4 years younger than me. 

As to intelligence, well I have 2 master's degrees now, a couple graduate certificates and I've presented at several professional conferences and published articles, so I must have some intelligence.  I need some intelligence to get my points across in this blog, and I couldn't do it without intelligence.  But I don't think intelligence alone is enough, either.  I think there also needs to be a certain insight, maybe wisdom, hopefully spirit-led perception and ability to communicate it. 

I must tell you though, lest you think I risk thinking of myself more highly than I ought, that I feel like this is sort of my last harrah.  I feel like I have to do this, but I don't know what else I can do.  You have to understand that my health isn't good, so I'm at home too much of the time and I'm unreliable for much of anything.  I'm just telling you as it is, really. 

***

The weaknesses that cannot be changed are best acknowledged for what they are without excess significance being allowed to transform them into fatal flaws.  Most people seem to want to work and worry about correcting their weaknesses.  A much better solution is to concentrate upon the development of strengths.  James Dobson calls this 'compensation' and says; 'compensation is your child's best weapon against inferiority.' compensation works for adults too." (p. 56)

I don't like the psychological lingo here and I'm not prone to particularly like the approach but there is some similarity, I think, to my approach, that I have used just through natural (I think) reflexes or how my personality works or something.

Basically the issue is that there is a weakness that is hindering you from doing something.  I think the weakness can be within the individual/a part of the individual or contextual  or otherwise external to the individual, but the effect is basically the same, right?

My approach is to try to figure out how to make lemonade or how to rethink the situation to make the best of it, maybe come up with a better solution, etc. 

Even now with my health limitations it works because I revise my interests and activities around what I am able to do.  So you have to take a creative, problem-solving perspective.  You have to be somewhat flexible and willing to accept a certain amount of change, which might be difficult for some people, I think.

It's been easier for me, though, because it's just me.  It's lonely, though, so I'm not sure I'd recommend that.  But if you have supportive family and/or friends they should be willing to work with you in that. 

***

Because a person's self-image is constructed primarily from interpersonal relationships (particularly with his parents), his self-image may be modified through the same process. (p. 57)

Well, there's no doubt my parents had an incredible impact on my self-image growing up.  Not only did we just have the usual family times, but our family did more than the usual family together, including a lot of camping and the like.   But the adult years are where we hit rocky roads and it's just because of the problem between my interests and dad's work.  And then my brother who lived there near them gets all hot under the collar about how dad was so upset trying to get me out of Russia and everything, but he doesn't understand everything else and how I had troubles getting jobs here and it wasn't until I became a librarian that I could get a job and all those problems were still fall out related to dad.  I'm not sure exactly how it works, though, so don't ask me to explain it, but all I know was I knew when I left Russia that I had to change professions and in fact I didn't start getting good career jobs until I changed professions. 

Dad loved me and maybe he was conflicted over me.  It hurt when he said he didn't believe me any more.  (After I dropped out of my doctoral studies, when I was being treated for hepatitis C and was in the hospital having had a very bad reaction to the Interferon.) Then that was it.  Then I couldn't talk to him for sure about anything.  I'd lost him.  I think when I dropped out of my doctoral studies he was off the hook, whereas before that things could still point back to him as my problems stemming from him.  But once I dropped out of my doctorate that was the point he felt he could free himself of this burden and he said he didn't believe me anymore.  That's how I understand it.

(I'm not sure if that last paragraph is clear so I'll try restating part of it.  Maybe Dad didn't like it  that my problems in Russia were pointing to him, meaning that it was because of him that I was invited over there and the problem was bad enough that I still had problems leaving in 1997, over 6 years later.  When I was making the appeal to try to get out of Russia it was to try to make it to a study program.  So when I dropped out of the doctoral program, which actually was not the original one even, dad decided to drop this bomb that he didn't believe me, which would sort of clear him of any responsibility.)

***

I can't quote this whole paragraph, because one line is cut off in the copy I made, but the author discusses how interpersonal relationships that become facilitative are characterized by feedback and feedback loops the evaluation and re-evaluation going on.

"The desired end result is a more accurate, balanced, healthy, self-concept." (p. 58)

This may be what my parents wanted to inculcate into me, and did a reasonably good job, I think.  But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the H.R. director at the Vienna mission desired this for me.  What exactly he wanted, I'm not sure, but the things I would hazzard guesses on are far from this description. 

What he was practicing was pseudo psychology in the service of security. 

***

I guess that's all for now.  This has really taken a long time.